Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3766540" data-attributes="member: 10397">Yea, thats what I was talking about. You seem to be coming from an academic/clinical standpoint based on criteria set down by the "literary elite" or whatever...people "educated" in these matters, supposedly. (I dont say that to be derisive of you or your personal opinions, just of the whole objective criteria for creativity concept.)  I'm coming from a rather more "basic" perspective, based on the idea that everyone is going to have different opinions on a work of art, and that everyones opinions, thoughts and feelings are of equal value. No, I just have less disconnect between "topics" than most people. One, just one mind you, of the issues I have with the notion of "art is objective" is that with any given piece of art many people are going to like it/enjoy it/consider it to be good, while others wont/don't/consider it bad. In your philosophy, as I understand it, the people who consider an obectively "bad" work to be "good" are objectively wrong in their opinion, and it tends to follow, therefore, in some way deficient wether its in knowledge, intelligence, or "taste". I disagree with this conclusion. See this I just cant wrap my mind around. Taste is of course subjective...but when talking about art, so is quality. Therefore, in art, taste and quality are both going to be different even with respect to the same work, as applied by different people.  Unless your willing to accept the notion that some peoples opinions are simply "wrong" Which, as near as I can tell, means it isnt objective. Objective things tend not to change with time. The basic requirements of building a working boat are the same now as a thousand years ago. But as you say, the opinion of the "elite" the "in the know" folks about what constitutes "good" and "bad" art changes regularly, and often even these "experts" disagree about a given work.All strong signs of subjectivity.   Discredited by who? See this is part of the thing...I don't accept the notion that anyone is able to dictate to anyone else the validity or relevence of things within these types of issues.That aside, your misunderstanding me I believe. When I speak of the purpose of a work, what I mean is that most works are made with one or more purposes, and if they succeed at least for some at one or more of those purposes, then they are successful or "good" works. And one of the main purposes of a work, even when it has others, is to be enjoyed. Other common purposes are to communicate something, to achieve a catharsis for the creator and/or audience, or simply because the creator wishes to see if they can create a work of a certain nature. Most if not all art suceeds in its purposes for at least some of those involved. But it does mean you cannot, or should not try to say someones experience or opinion of a work is incorrect. That someone is wrong to consider a work "good" because according to the "experts" its "bad" But it can also have value in and of itself. Many consider Star Wars a wonderful movie...even including some who are "educated" in such things. So are their opinions "wrong?" it cant all be "good" for everyone no. But all of it will be good for someone, probably more than one someone, meaning either 1) it isnt objectively bad or 2) some peoples opinions essentially "don't count"</blockquote>

Verification